Phylogenetics, zoogeography, and the role of dispersal and vicariance in the evolution of the Rana catesbeiana (Anura: Ranidae) species group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rana catesbeiana species group consists of seven species, each variously distributed across eastern North America. We estimated the evolutionary relationships among 31 exemplars and used the phylogenetic hypothesis to examine the potential modes of speciation and relative role of dispersal in the evolution and zoogeography of this species group. Phylogenetic relationships based on 1554 combined base pairs of the cytochrome b and ND2 mitochondrial genes suggest that the species are closely related, having undergone rapid radiation from a common ancestor during the late Miocene or Pliocene. A Pleistocene origin for the rare R. okaloosae is suggested by its pattern of paraphyly with R. clamitans and by its geographically restricted distribution, although hybridization as the explanation for paraphyly cannot be ruled out. Dispersal–vicariance analysis suggested a Coastal Plain biogeographical region origin of the species group, supporting the notion that the region was an important centre of anuran diversification, with post-speciation dispersal playing a major role in explaining the distribution of the widespread species, R. catesbeiana, R. clamitans, and R. septentrionalis. High sea levels during the late Tertiary, greatly reducing and insularizing parts of the southern Coastal Plain region may have played a major role in the diversification of this group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".